This is incredibly similar to feminist refusal to criticize Islamic Fundamentalism. That shouldn’t be a surprise. Feminists love totalitarianism of all forms so they love Islamic Fundamentalism and North Korea.

Sony won’t be releasing the movie, The Interview, due to getting hacked by North Korea. What are the reactions of people who are anti-#GamerGate? Someone compiled this image of what feminists and SJWs had to say about it (Click to enlarge):

I especially like the one that says, “I hate that First Amendment shit. I hate it.” It really gets to the heart of what they believe.

At least feminists and SJWs are consistent. Whether its them bullying stores into not carrying GTA V or North Korea bullying movie theaters into not showing The Interview, they support it. It makes sense since feminists and SJWs want a North Korean style totalitarian government here and want to be able to produce propaganda unopposed like they can in North Korea.

I was on my own with a full-time consultancy, but I scaled it back to off-hours and went back to a forty-hour-a-week corporate job for the health insurance. The cost of individual health care plans was insane, and the crappy ACA plans provide worse coverage with fewer providers – and they’re even more expensive!

I really think what the feds are up to here is trying to kill off as many individual and small business operators as possible. After all, it’s a lot easier to monitor and tax large corporate entities than it is to chase after a bunch of little ones.

The best health insurance for geeks building startups (or self employed people) is a catastrophic plan or a plan that is tailored for their exact needs. For anyone starting a new business, keeping health insurance costs to the bare minimum is important because it will take time for a new business to generate profit. Obamacare makes such plans illegal. Instead of making easier to start a new business, Obamacare makes it considerably more expensive and more difficult.

Most geeks who are going to create a new startup are young unmarried men. A health insurance plan under Obamacare covers a multitude of things they don’t need. What these geeks pay for under Obamacare is not health insurance for themselves but a wealth transfer from themselves to women. Geeks wanting to create their own startup will either decide not to create a new startup or go without health insurance altogether. What the White House is hoping for is the former. Forcing geeks to work at large corporations benefits Obamacare. This is because a large corporation will enroll them in an Obamacare approved health insurance plan even if they don’t want to be enrolled. Despite the fines, anyone without health insurance can still choose to not get a health insurance plan from the Obamacare exchanges. That choice doesn’t exist for anyone working at a large corporation so large corporations are the best way to enforce Obamacare on young unmarried men. A large corporation will make sure that geeks who otherwise would be at their own startup pay the bachelor tax of Obamacare. (As a side benefit to the White House, forcing geeks into working at a large corporation also makes them more likely to work on projects like Healthcare.gov instead of something new that expands the economy.)

Obamacare has a fatal flaw. It requires the group that needs the least amount of health insurance on average to pay the most money compared to any other group for it. That group is young men, particularly young single men, and young men have no reason to purchase health insurance under the Obamacare system. For most young (single) men, the only health insurance they need is catastrophic insurance, but such a health insurance plan is considered “substandard” under Obamacare. Health insurance plans under Obamacare have to include things that young (single) men will never use like maternity coverage. Even though there are fines for not buying health insurance under Obamacare, young (single) men have less reason to purchase health insurance under Obamacare than they did before Obamacare.

Because young (single) men have no reason to support to Obamacare system, posters like these have been created in a desperate attempt to get young (single) men to buy into Obamacare:

This poster was created by Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, and it’s a complete lie for at least two reasons. First, Obamacare can’t be called “brosurance” because it will never benefit “bros” or young (single) men. It will only benefit women, and women will always have priority over men under the Obamacare health system. Obamacare should be called gynosurance not brosurance. Second, health insurance under Obamacare will cost a young (single) man a great deal more than beer money because he is subsidizing everyone else’s health care. It’s actually better described as a “bro-tax”, “bro-fine”.

A more recognized name for a “bro-tax” is a bachelor tax. Obamacare is probably the first actual bachelor tax in the United States. It’s not a coincidence that the first bachelor tax in the U.S. was related to health care. Men used to subsidize women’s health insurance via family health insurance plans. Specifically, men subsidized the health insurance of their wives and daughters. As marriage rates have dropped so has the marital health insurance subsidy has evaporated. In other words, Obamacare is the first (unintentional) salvo against the marriage strike, MGTOW/MOO (men going their own way/men opting out).

While Obamacare was caused by the marriage strike & MGTOW/MOO, it will also fail because of the marriage strike & MGTOW/MOO. A young single man has no reason to subsidize the health insurance of women he doesn’t know. (Many young single men couldn’t even if they wanted to because unemployment is high among young men.) Men who have decided to never get married or go their own way/opt out will never subsidize the health insurance of women they don’t know. The government will never be able to force marriage striking men and MGTOW/MOOs to pay into Obamacare or a similar scheme. If the fine for not buying into Obamacare is cheap, then it’s cheaper to pay the fine and women’s health insurance isn’t subsidized enough. If the fine is expensive, then it’s cheaper to go to jail. A man in jail will never pay health insurance. Instead his health insurance will become an additional cost for the government making the problem the problem even worse.

Obamacare is guaranteed to fail since the government has no way to force men to buy into the system. Any replacement for Obamacare that attempts to have men subsidize women’s health insurance will fail for the same reason.

What is missing from this picture? Men. The only men in it are the man at the desk who is working there and not part of the protest and some kid who looks like he actually there to see a professor or something like that (and possibly not a part of the protest). He’s also not screaming like the rest of the women so that makes it more likely he really isn’t part of the protest.

Where are the men? As men are expected to work, they don’t have time for pointless and meaningless protests like this. Many men aren’t there because they decided not to go to college after realizing its an anti-male cesspool where protests like these double as protests against men. (When these girls protest Wells Fargo, they only see the executives, the apex of Wells Fargo, which they imagine to be all men.) Some of these men may be working to repair damage from superstorm Sandy, a job women aren’t doing. Men who are going to college major in useful areas of study that require real work like STEM. Those men are in class or studying since they actually have to work for their grades unlike the girls above who are probably majoring in feminist basket weaving where they will get an automatic A for having a vagina.

Why are the men missing from this picture? Because they have to work. Because they don’t have a vagina and thus don’t get free stuff.

Not many people realize that outsourcing happens mostly due to feminism.

Feminists impose all sorts of costs on businesses in the US, who are forced to employ women despite the low productivity of these female employees.

Since an office is not allowed to have too many men, the next best answer is to move the entire department to India or China, where Western feminists can no longer harass it.

Since Western women cost more than what Western men produce, outsourcing is inevitable, as a means to avoid feminism.

This is true. Plenty of people have tried to run the numbers on the offshoring of jobs, but they can never figure out where the savings are supposed to be. Business would only offshore jobs if it made financial sense, and running the numbers indicates that it doesn’t make financial sense because any savings gets eaten up by the costs of offshoring. That is the case until you include the costs of feminism in the analysis. When someone runs the numbers on offshoring, they don’t include things like the costs of the false sexual harassment industry, affirmative action, and pure makework jobs for women in their analysis. As soon as feminism is included, offshoring makes perfect financial sense for business. In fact, it’s surprising that there isn’t more offshoring of jobs.

If you want jobs to come back to the US (and elsewhere), then you have to eliminate feminism.

Whatever the other positives and negatives are of the Occupy Wall Street movement, it is another vehicle for misandry. Some examples of misandry in the Occupy Wall Street movement, can be found at its We Are the 99% blog which showcases people who believe they are the victim of the richest 1%. That blog has a high number of single mothers and other women demonstrating high levels of entitlement as can be seen in the following examples:

This woman says, “Let the dudes pay my bill!” In other words, she is demanding men subsidize her, not rich men or billionaires (which would be questionable enough) but men in general. This is a repeated theme that can be seen with this woman who says, “men lied”. Again, it’s all men she is blaming.

This woman is complaining that she is going heavily into debt in college because she wants to work as an “activist” at a “feminist non-profit”:

Single mothers and soon to be single mothers are seen a lot on the We Are The 99% blog. The following examples have a common theme of how the bank bailouts should have been given to single mothers or women in general to subsidize their bad decisions:

Occupy Wall Street’s General Assembly operates under a revolutionary “progressive stack.” A normal “stack” means those who wish to speak get in line. A progressive stack encourages women and traditionally marginalized groups speak before men, especially white men. This is something that has been in place since the beginning, it is necessary, and it is important.

“Step up, step back” was a common phrase of the first week, encouraging white men to acknowledge the privilege they have lived in their entire lives and to step back from continually speaking.

All of this adds up to Occupy Wall Street being another arm of misandry. As far as they are concerned, if you are male, then you are part of the 1%.

Universities like everyone else are feeling the pinch in the current economy. This has led to them to look for places where they can cut expenditures. It would make the most sense to cut the useless parts of a university such as womens studies majors, various ethnic studies majors, “diversity” programs, programs for women, affirmative action, etc. and all of the associated expensive deans and bureaucracy that come along with such uselessness. The University of Cincinnati has not done this. Instead the University of Cincinnati has decided to cut its computer science major.

While the university claims that the computer science major is really being folded into other majors so nothing will be “lost”, this is not true. Computer Science is an independent discipline. Folding computer science into other majors is like a university trying to eliminate its chemical engineering major into its chemistry major. Despite the overlap, it makes no sense.

A university has many purposes ranging from preparation for jobs and careers to loftier goals such as expanding the sum total of human knowledge. The University of Cincinnati by cutting its computer science major instead of its womens studies major and all other useless majors has failed all of these purposes. What they decide to eliminate and keep sends a strong message about what they think is important. The University of Cincinnati has sent a clear message that what they think is important is feminist and leftist indoctrination.

Even knowing that the University of Cincinnati has decided to place more importance in feminist and leftist indoctrination than employment and the body of human knowledge, why was computer science chosen as the first major to be eliminated? Most likely there were several factors in the university’s decision but one of them had to be the pervasive anti-male bias that exists at most universities. Computer science is a major that is taken by mostly men, and those men are mostly “politically incorrect” men such as white men and asian men. If the University of Cincinnati cuts more majors they will most likely be other engineering and science majors that are made up of mostly “politically incorrect” men.

In the end this decision really only hurts the University of Cincinnati. Anyone who wants to major in computer science will go elsewhere along with their tuition and fees. Many men who weren’t going to major in computer science will still avoid the University of Cincinnati because its anti-male bias is clearer than the average university. In a few years alumni donations will start to collapse as men who are employed in computer science jobs will be donating to the universities they went to and not the University of Cincinnati. All the womens studies and ethnic studies alumni will not be able to make up for the lost alumni donations. The womens and ethnic studies alumni are going to government, quasi-government, and other government mandated jobs that are going to collapse in the near future. A alumni with no job or a job where they have to say, “Would you like fries with that?” will not be able to donate to their alma mater. Research grants will fall apart for the University of Cincinnati as they will not be able to make use of them.

In a way it’s good that the University of Cincinnati made this decision. Instead of hiding what they’re really about, now everyone knows.

Those of you familiar with transhumanism have most likely noticed how many of my ideas are transhumanist. I have said at least a couple of times that despite this, I do not call myself or consider myself a transhumanist. The reason for this is that the extra baggage that comes along with it, namely the leftist ideology that lots of transhumanists believe in. The Antifeminist had a Dialog With A Transhumanist that demonstrates this problem. Too many transhumanists are enamored with leftist ideology, feminism in particular. The good news is that most of these transhumanists are idle prognosticators so they will not be actually developing any technology and can’t develop towards feminist ends. Despite that, I can’t call myself a transhumanist because while they may not influence technology, they have influenced what is called “transhumanism”.

No, we need increases in the social programs and here’s why. First of all, the social programs at the state and local level are being decimated because states, unlike the federal government, states can’t run a deficit. The federal government can and should in order to support these social programs.

The social programs mostly benefit women – these are things like childcare and after school programs and anti-violence programs and training programs. Those things are for women but the interesting thing is a lot of them employ women. So from my point of view, we really need those social programs enhanced – not cut.

There has been much written in the manosphere about how government spending is mainly spent on women. However, for the first time, a feminist and the president of NOW no less, has admitted. She has also admitted that women disproportionately employed by government at all levels, another fact widely discussed in the manosphere.

In addition, this shows us that feminists will not bend to the reality of a shrinking economy and shrinking government revenues. Instead feminists will double down (and triple down and quadruple down) and fight to the last womyn to keep governments at all levels spending on women. The fact that the US and other countries can no longer afford (if they ever could) feminism does not matter to them. The fact that the federal government of the US alone had a $1.4 trillion deficit in 2010 or is projected to have a $1.5 trillion deficit in 2011 does not matter to feminists. Knowing that the federal government is running these deficits already, O’Neill has effectively demanded multi-trillion dollar deficits and doesn’t care about the myriad of problems it would cause such as hyperinflation.

Most women aren’t pure ideologues. They don’t adhere strictly to a particular ideology. This is key to understanding how the average woman fits into feminism and how feminism has caused the destruction it has. Too often feminism is defined in terms of what a cadre of lesbians or some other small group has done. It ends up treating feminism vs. anti-feminism as a purely academic debate that has no real effect on the real world. Feminists aren’t just some group of aliens on the planet, Uranus. If they were, we would have nothing to worry about. Instead feminism (or rather female supremacism) exists in various forms all over that many women and even men believe in.

However, a woman may be not purely be a conservative female supremacist (i.e. a social conservative) either. The average woman while not purely a feminist is not purely a conservative female supremacist either. Most people don’t think in the necessary post-modern academic terms to adhere to one of those forms of female supremacism. Not adhering to a pure female supremacist ideology does not mean that a person is anti-feminist/anti-female supremacy. Women in particular will develop their own personal female supremacism using a combination ideas from various strains of female supremacism. The “hybrid feminism” of “hybrid female supremacism” they create is not pure in terms of feminism or social conservatism or any other form of defined female supremacism but it’s feminist in the most important way possible. It’s about advancing women at the expense of men.

Why is understanding the idea of “hybrid feminism” important? Because the average woman does not believe herself to be a feminist (or socon) in any way. Her belief that she’s “not a feminist” doesn’t make her an anti-feminist. She will still have female supremacist beliefs. We have all heard statements like, “I’m not a feminist because I’m not a lesbian”, “I’m not a feminist because I don’t believe in gay marriage”, “I’m not a feminist because I don’t believe in abortion”, “I not a feminist because I’m a stay at home mom”, “I’m not a feminist because I want to get married”, “I’m not a feminist because it hurts women”, “I don’t know any feminists”, etc. These “not feminist” women still divorce their husbands, make false rape and false sexual harassment charges, send their sons to be emasculated in feminist public schools, vote for politicians that redistribute male wealth to women, etc. Despite being “not feminist”, these women have no problem using and support feminist programs and institutions. A lesbian on another planet (which is how socons effectively think of feminism) is not going to divorce her husband to get half of his assets or have sons to send to feminist public schools (on Earth).

A question that gets asked over and over again is where are these “not feminist” women when it comes to fighting feminism? They are always nowhere to be found outside of things that don’t affect men like abortion and gay marriage. They will have excuses like, “I’m too busy raising my family.” Being “too busy” never stops them from fighting against abortion or gay marriage. They are only “too busy” when it comes to cases where they benefit or may benefit in the future such as eliminating no fault divorce or eliminating government programs that benefit women.

The debate between feminists and socons is just about how to best acquire and control the resources and assets of men or how to best hold the whip over men. Many socon women are only against feminism because they believe men benefit from feminism and want to put a stop to men benefiting from anything. It’s the same with the “hybrid feminist”. They pick the combination of ideas from various female supremacist ideologies that they believe are the best way for themselves and/or women in general to hold the whip over men.

It’s been a while since I got some hate email. This week I got two pieces of hate email from the same person. They were sent to me in about 10 minutes of each other.

“Dora” (I think that’s her name from the email address) wrote in her first email:

It pains me to see someone distort the truth to such an exaggeration that they would deny themselves the greatest gift in the world, a child. I truly hope you and the rest of society set aside petty differences and misunderstandings to find the true meaning of what it is to fight for freedom. Maybe a letter from Harry T. Burn’s mother would help or a book by Susan Faludi or maybe an encounter with someone like Mariya Dolina. I wish you nothing but happiness in the future, but will hope for the day you will understand even a fraction of a woman.

I haven’t said for sure that I would “deny” myself a child. I may go to a place like the Rotunda Clinic in India which would use my sperm to produce a child via a surrogate mother. I’m not sure if I will end up doing that but I don’t think that is what Dora had in mind.

And fighting for freedom? Dora really had to pick three examples of anti-freedom women. There’s Harry T. Burn’s mom who used shaming language to get the 19th Amendment passed which is responsible for the expanding socialist state that has brought us to the brink economically and is responsible for the loss of our freedom since 1920. Yes, she used shaming language:

Dear Son: Hurrah and vote for suffrage! Don’t keep them in doubt! I notice some of the speeches against. They were bitter. I have been watching to see how you stood, but have not noticed anything yet. Don’t forget to be a good boy and help Mrs. Catt put the “rat” in ratification. Your mother

Harry T. Burn voted for the 19th Amendment because “a good boy always does what he is told”. Susan Faludi is a feminist which is anti-freedom. Mariya Dolina fought for the totalitarian socialist Soviet Union.

Then there’s the “I don’t understand women”. Like most women she doesn’t understand herself so she refuses to believe that a man understands women. If you’re a man in the part of the internet you know the deal. And let’s not forget how much “pain” Dora is in because of me. It’s the pain of a man knowing the real deal about women.

Here is Dora’s second email:

I personally would not follow through with many of the laws out there. For example, even if my husband divorced me, I would not take a dime from him. I’m too proud and work too hard. You’re probably thinking BS!!!!! Well, you do not know the capabilities of the true women that believe in climbing the ladder on their own and in a truly independent manner. I feel your blog just perpetuates the cycle of beating down people like me and turning some which there may be hope for bitter causing lawsuits and what not to make you mad and here’s the cycle all over again… You know what I’m saying?

This is one big, “I’m not like that”. Dora predicted correctly that I would think its BS but that isn’t a difficult prediction to make. Why is it Dora’s “true women” make up less than 0.1% of the female population? The rest define what “true women” are.

I have to ask what was the point of these emails? If Dora was really concerned about a “perpetuating cycle” of animosity between the sexes why is she here and emailing me? This is an unknown blog in the larger culture/world. While I would love this blog to have influence over the wider world the fact is that it doesn’t. We have all seen these women who come on to MRA forums and blogs who start telling us how we need to “moderate” our tone to get female support and how we sound like the mirror image of feminists. Yet, these women never do anything to try and convince other women out of their feminism. Dora is the same. Unless Dora thinks I really am a reptile alien than runs the Illuminati (and thus have the influence that would make writing such emails sensible) she’s full of crap on this point.

Lastly, I have to say that I miss women telling me that I have a small dick. It’s much more efficient than BS like these two emails and we can get straight to the point of the woman who said it is full of crap.

When I have to go through these machines at the airport I have nothing to worry about from what I have been told, but you guys might. And we all have to worry about terrorists getting past security since TSA workers are too busy checking out our dicks.

This is an actual picture from a protest in Des Moines, Iowa. As you can see from the video, this protest was a bunch of kids “organized” (more like bribed with extra credit or possibly threatened) by Terry Hoffman, a language teacher. I’m not kidding, a language teacher. This picture says everything that is wrong with unionized teachers and wrong with public schools.

To top that off, take a look at this video from Saturday Night Live called the 2010 Public Employee of the Year Awards. Saturday Night Live has done it again in describing something so accurately, in this case unionized government employees. (Video is only available on Hulu.)

Oh look. You found a slut with low standards to cater to your filthy desires.

As you can tell “Monica” and “Liz” came here as a result of Susan Walsh’s blog. “Diane” probably did so as well, but I can’t tell for sure. All of them came here days after I was banned from Susan Walsh’s blog. As Alkibiades put it, that place is a pig sty. I am happy to stay out of it, but Susan Walsh’s readers think they can come over here and post with impunity saying all manner of crap about me. If I get any more comments from them they automatically go into the moderation queue. Most likely I will let them through because I am more than happy to give them enough rope to hang themselves. I’m sure “Monica”, “Liz”, and “Diane” are very angry about this and fail to see their own hypocrisy. I have no idea where they came up with this BS. I actually had to check Susan Walsh’s blog to see if she actually accused me of hacking the comments on her blog. As crazy as Susan is, she isn’t that crazy. If you really thought I was making up Sabrina (or Kristen or Rachel) then why come here at all, much less post about it? It doesn’t affect their lives. What’s really going on is that they want to paint me as a virgin since it’s a disaster of epic proportions if it turns out that a blow job (or several blow jobs) doesn’t cause a man to stop caring about his rights. It didn’t work on me, and that makes me a threat. In reality, the amount a man is getting laid doesn’t matter with respect to his understanding of his rights.

Not only are “Monica”, “Liz”, and “Diane” hypocrites, but they’re parasites in a way as well (and probably other ways too). They can think they can effectively take my work and use it for their purposes, attacking me in this case. I realized this angle when I was reading the latest post over at Virgin at 50’s blog where he talks about the email he gets. He describes one of the groups that sends him email as, “Semi-literate rants from feminists, reeking with the stench of sociopathy. With spittle dripping from herpetic encrusted lips, they point a gnarled stump of a finger at me and screech ‘pathetic’ and ‘creepy'”. Again why are these women bothering? Some random blog about a 50 year old virgin isn’t going to affect their lives.

He goes on to talk about how women would rather have sex with convicts and homeless men rather than him. What’s even better is the next thing he says:

I own a business that provides jobs. I created those jobs out of nothing. I know how to create things, build things, and fix things. Without guys like me, females would be shivering in dark, dank caves, wondering why there’s nothing to eat.

Feminists say that I’m pathetic, which is like a tapeworm calling its host pathetic. I say that a society in which females value convicts and the homeless more than they value a man who creates jobs is not only a pathetic society but a dying society.

Let me be the first to spit on its grave.

Be sure to read it a few times so the massive amount of truth sinks in. There are people out there who act like I’m nuts when I show the connections between socialist policies and the current state of male-female relationships and interaction. This again gets to the heart of how for many women, they want you (if you’re a man) to go away, but not you’re income stream. Socialism allows them to attempt to do this so you should be able to see the connection. In essence its a war on productive men (which itself is a good definition for socialism).

There are those of you out there who will say that the only reason this guy is saying this is because he can’t get laid. This is code purple shaming language. Also, I am saying this too, and I am getting laid so that has nothing to do with it. Even for us men who can get laid plenty we still recognize the problem. I didn’t stop being productive just because I got laid multiple times. This is just as much a problem for me as it is for virgin at 50.

This comes from the female attitude that we have heard over and over again, “what’s mine is mine and what’s his is mine”. Women have scaled this up to the national level too, and that attitude is what we are seeing here whether its through socialist policies to steal wealth from men or through emails and comments on blogs.

If you go to the blog of a socialist and start posting economic facts, the socialist will eventually ban you because they don’t facts interfering with their delusion. I was banned from Susan Walsh’s blog, the same Susan Walsh who said that I’m a dick and incapable of treating women like anything other than “cum dumpsters”, in much the same manner. Its even a more apt comparison since Susan Walsh has no understanding of economics, just like socialists, despite having gone to Wharton. When I read that I was banned, I couldn’t help but laugh. I’m surprised she didn’t ban me sooner. I’m a real threat to her ideology, not in what I say despite bringing some facts to her blog, but I can draw directly on my own life experiences such as my experiment to show she is wrong. While I’m surprised that I wasn’t banned sooner, I’m not that surprised that it happened right now.

One side thing that happened was that I took on one of her readers that is some type of Gloria Allred lawyer type in the Philippines. I objected to her characterization of Filipino men as dangerous animals that spend their days raping and beating women. She tried to claim this was true because women are “short” in her country, that there was a law called VAWC (violence against women and children) which didn’t even work, and an example of a guy with six mistresses (among other things). Of course, you should notice the similarity just in the NAME of the VAWC to VAWA. Anti-male misandrist laws have similar names wherever you go. The last thing she said to me was that I wasn’t interested in “dialog”. That was the only thing she was right about. As I said in a similar fashion in my piece on Triangulation, I am not interested in “dialog”, “compromise”, or “finding a middle ground”. All those terms mean (if they actually worked and history clearly says they don’t) only half many men would be ass raped in divorce court, only half as many men would be in jail because of the false rape industry, etc., and this is unacceptable. Most succinctly, “dialog” with someone or someones that are insane, drunk on power, & power hungry always means they will win. Thus we must reject it because there is no reason we should negotiate our freedom away. As Barry Goldwater said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

There is guy who posted there who went by the name of Steveo. Steveo’s story was that he was about 30 and a sexless virgin. In his questioning of why this was happening, he came across the MRAsphere/MGTOWsphere/gamesphere. He realized either before or after about the injustice against men, and he is understandably angry about it. At Susan Walsh’s blog, Steveo got a whole lot of platitudes and other pro-female BS. Of course, Steveo knew enough to know it was mostly BS (even Obsidian and others noticed this) especially the parts that effectively assumed he was obese and smelly with crappy clothes. Steveo emailed me, and I have been talking to him. It’s clear that I have helped him more in one email than all of these pro-female morons on Susan Walsh’s blog could in months. I’m not sure what path Steveo will take in the short, medium, or long term, but I know I helped for real. And Steveo is not the only man I have helped. I get emails all the time from men in the same situation or similar situations to Steveo. It’s plenty of work responding to all of them, but I know I have helped for real. Susan Walsh says I have a new “follower”, but that just means she doesn’t understand men or what men are deciding to do in response to pervasive misandry. As a MGHOW I am doing what’s best for my life. Steveo now understands that he can GHOW, whatever his own way is since it may or may not be similar to my way, and doesn’t have to obey misandrists. The great sin I committed was that I made it so the morons on Susan Walsh’s blog don’t have their punching bag anymore.

Plenty of shaming language was also used against Steveo. Susan Walsh said about Steveo and guys like him, “I believe steveo’s sexual frustration drives his interest in the political aspect, as is often the case with MRA types, in my experience.” This of course is code tan shaming language. (Susan Walsh did try to claim she really didn’t mean that not getting laid is the only reason men talk about male injustice, but this was conveniently after when she banned me.) There’s plenty of anti-male shaming language going on there, not the least of which is how Susan Walsh tries to claim what women are going through (i.e. feeling bad and seeing women get together with alphas) with what men are going through. This is absurd, and she denied it, but after I showed an example of this false equivalence, I get banned. She can’t bury what she said when I’m around.

In all this talk about Steveo, one thing that came up was all of the monetary transfers done by government were disenfranchising guys like Steveo, similar to what I talked about here. Susan Walsh denied such a thing was relevant to Steveo’s situation, but it is. Hungry Hungry Hippos disproved this. More importantly, it reveals that Susan Walsh has no understanding of economics whatsoever. She even said about this, “transfer of wealth from the govt. to women”. The government has no wealth of its own. It only has what it gets in taxes (and loans) both of which have come from men not a magic money tree.

Also, revealing her lack of understanding of economics Susan Walsh asked me this, but banned me before I could answer, perhaps to prevent me from posting an answer there:

I have a question for you re the transfer of wealth. As we know, women are outpacing men in education, and catching up rapidly in earning power. The Pew report said that in 22% of marriages, the woman earns more than the man. This is up from 4% in 1970. This trend is expected to continue. What will be the impact on men as the wealth transfer slowly evolves to women supporting other women?

There are plenty of economic fallacies here. I suggest you don’t play a drinking game of spot the economic fallacies in Susan Walsh’s question, otherwise you will pass out quickly. Women are “outpacing” men in education. As we all know there are a big difference between degrees in engineering, the sciences, liberal arts, women’s studies, etc. With much of the “education” these women are receiving (which isn’t really an education, but a credentialation), all that is happening is indoctrination. If it weren’t for government jobs and government derived jobs, these women’s degrees would be useless (given the rapidly increasing nature of student loans they already are arguably), and they would be saying, “Would you like fries with that?” Women are catching up in earning power only in that men are having their jobs (which are real, wealth producing jobs) destroyed by government policies to favor women. What this means is that there will never be a wealth transfer from women to women. As the mancession continues, and men’s wealth producing jobs are destroyed by the government there is a shrinking tax base. It’s not a coincidence that the mancession happened at the same time as greater than a trillion dollar federal deficits. Watch as those deficits become multi-trillion dollar deficits. With so many women dependent on government jobs or jobs sucking off the government teat, the tax base is continually shrinking. It’s not sustainable the only reason it’s still going now are the loans given to the government. As we know this increasingly means bonds sold to foreigners particularly the Chinese. You won’t have women transferring wealth to women, but Chinese men and other foreign men transferring wealth to American women. Of course, the Chinese aren’t going to fund our deficits much longer. Even if they wanted to, they are physically unable to do so. Combine this with the Tea Parties who are very angry about the platinum plated salaries, benefits, and pensions that government workers are getting, and we are not that far away from government being forced to shrink, and this means lots of unemployed women. Expect some major battles as these women will fight it tooth and nail.

It has been pointed out that most women have no understanding of supply and demand so Susan Walsh’s failure to understand economics is not surprising except that she went to Wharton. However, it has been shown that at the time she went (early 80s) their affirmative action program was desperate for women, any woman. Even knowing that, you would think that Susan Walsh would have learned at least a few basics about economics by osmosis being at Wharton if nothing else. It just goes to show that she was at Wharton due to affirmative action, and that’s probably true about her subsequent jobs too.

Susan Walsh said that I am not seeking an “emotional connection” with a woman, and thus I “don’t belong” on her blog. How would she know? Most women aren’t offering such a thing so its clear that Susan Walsh doesn’t understand cause and effect either. It’s just like when she said that I can only relate to women as “cum dumpsters”. If that is the case (and the same that I’m not looking for an “emotional connection”) then the reason why I am successful with women now is because I treat women like “cum dumpsters” and don’t look for “emotional connections” with women. You can decide for yourself if I treat women like “cum dumpsters”.

Susan Walsh says I would like nothing more than for her blog to self destruct. It doesn’t matter what I want or don’t want since her blog has already failed completely at its stated mission, helping women find relationships. The blog self destructing is immaterial. These women are hetero and presumably monogamous so that means relationships with men and one man for each woman. The problem is that Susan Walsh is refusing to honestly describe what is happening to men. Why would men want to get into relationships with these women? Look at what is happening with divorce, sexual harassment, the mancession and all the other issues feminism causes to men. Increasingly with VR sex, more onerous laws, less jobs, less men are going to want and/or be able to get into relationships, but on Susan Walsh’s blog men are treated as an object or an accessory, not human beings with their own thoughts and desires. Let’s look at what my colleague at The Spearhead, Welmer, had to say about having women in his life now:

It goes back and forth. Sometimes I feel I still do, but when I think about the potential harm they can do, I’m not sure it’s worth it. When my ex went on her rampage and I filed for divorce and custody, dozens of women came out of the woodwork to condemn me, including several I’d never even met or heard of and many I hadn’t met more than a couple times (she dragged in all of her high school friends, family, and even parents’ neighbors). Only one woman – an aunt – stood up for me unconditionally. What this taught me is that when it counts, women can be guaranteed to side with women — especially when the women are behaving terribly.

If a man even just seen one experience like this (and many, many men have seen examples of women always siding with women no matter how noxious their behavior) why would he want to get in a relationship with a woman? At that point the only thing is getting laid, and for a lot of men that isn’t even worth it.

I had also uncovered how Susan Walsh thinks feminism is all about casual sex and nothing else. What is happening to men as a result of feminism is something Susan Walsh completely ignores. It’s relevant because why would men want to get into relationships with women that listen to her? It also shows how Susan Walsh is similar to conservative female supremacist women. CFS women are “against” feminism, but their only real argument against feminist is abortion (and maybe gay marriage) to the point of claiming that feminism is all about abortion and that men benefit from feminism. This is because CFS women agree with 99% of the feminist agenda. They are female supremacist just like the feminists, but with a minor disagreement. Susan Walsh is similar in that she has a minor disagreement with the Jessica Valenti stream of feminism. Again Susan Walsh denied everything that is happening to men like CFS women when she said, “casual sex is feminism”.

This gets to the heart of the matter. Women progressively get worse forgetting more and more than men are human beings. The alternatives to women such as VR sex appear and get better and better. Already you have men ghosting and semi-ghosting playing video games instead of having anything to do with women. Video games don’t even claim to replace women in any way like VR sex would. That’s how “bad” it is already for the women that listen to Susan Walsh. However, I have said everything I can say about this, and it’s not my problem.

I haven’t read all the comments yet, but if there were truly a sexual free marketplace, then women wouldn’t also be receiving transfer payments from betas who would normally only provide them with resources in a pair bond. These transfer payments take such a huge variety of forms(“family law”, affirmative action, a vast majority of state employees being female), but if it were possible to cut all of them off, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that would enfranchise a pretty huge portion of betas, possibly even as much as the institution of “sexually socialist” monogamy. It’s like the beta suffers both from the removal of monogamy AND from a shit ton of taxes being levied on him in an effort to make transfer payments to women.

The government is giving subsidies to women that distort the sexual marketplace so there is no “deregulated sexual marketplace” right now. This causes vajazzling in a figurative sense of the term. Vajazzling is when a woman superglues crystals to her vagina. If you take a look at the link, the women doing this actually think men like this (as in they think it raises their value with men when it really doesn’t). Socialist subsidies to women are vajazzling in a figurative sense since those subsidies give women the false belief that their value has increased. With literal or figurative vajazzling, a woman’s value has not increased in reality so we have a misandry bubble that will soon pop.

Recently, I wrote on my blog about about an article from Reason Magazine (found via our own EW’s blog) that said that the primary class war is now between public sector employees and private sector employees. The article explains how government jobs are now better paid, have better benefits, have platinum plated pensions, and in some cases are even effectively exempt from some laws such as various traffic laws. I made the observation that this meant the primary class war was now between men and women because public sector employment is now mostly female. Public sector employment is now a vehicle for promoting female supremacism.

This also means that organized labor has also become a vehicle for promoting female supremacism. It used to be that organized labor was made up of men working in the private sector. In fact, unionization of government employees at the federal level wasn’t even allowed until 1962. Over time, private sector unionization has gone down while public sector unionization has gone up. For the first last year, a majority of unionized workers have jobs in the public sector (making up 52% of unionized workers) instead of the private sector. As a result, unions have become more and more about political activism for raising taxes and increasing unsustainable government spending. There are many examples of this. In Arizona, the Arizona Education Association (the teachers’ union in Arizona) successfully lobbied against repeal of a $250 million a year statewide property tax and identified another $2.1 billion in tax increases to forestall spending reductions. In California, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) spent $1 million on a television ad campaign pressing for higher oil, gas, and liquor taxes. In Maine, the Maine Municipal Association, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the Teamsters, and the Maine Education Association collectively spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to campaign against a ballot initiative in November 2009 that would prevent government spending from growing faster than the combined rate of inflation and population growth and require the government to return excess revenues as tax rebates. In Oregon last week, there were two ballot initiatives to raise personal and business taxes that passed. Ninety percent of the advertising promoting a yes vote was provided by public employee unions who also made sure that the money that will be collected from the tax increases will go into benefits for public sector employees.

Knowing that the public sector workforce is predominately female, this means that all of these tax increases with increased spending on public sector employees are effectively acting as a transfer of wealth from men to women. It’s no surprise that state branches of the National Education Association (the teachers’ union) come up again and again when it comes to increasing taxes to spend on government employees as the teaching profession and by extension the membership of the NEA is predominately female. These are the reasons why organized labor has become another arm of female supermacism.

Here is a story from Reason about how the primary class war is now between public sector employees and taxpayers (found via EW’s blog). This means that the primary class war is between men and women now since women make up most public sector jobs so men are working in the private sector paying taxes essentially to women. When we think of ways that men are forced to subsidize women, it’s usually about marriage and divorce or government policies that transfer tax money from men to women such as government programs that only women benefit from. However, the employment of women by the government is also another way of men subsidizing women (especially since many of these government jobs are completely useless).

We’re getting close to the point where there will have to be drastic reductions in government spending. After all, multi-trillion dollar deficits are unsustainable. This will mean that a lot of women will be losing their jobs after a large fight of course where I expect men will be demonized by women trying to protect their unnecessary jobs.

(Disclaimer for this post: I am not nor do I claim to be an economist or have any formal education in economics.)

By now you have read The Misandry Bubble. (If not, go read it right now.) The term, misandry bubble, is very accurate because the misandry bubble operates like an economic bubble.

Economic bubbles fall into two types. The first type is typically a technological related economic bubble. The Railway Mania in the 1800s and the dot com bubble are two examples of this type. Both of those bubbles had all of the typical behaviors of economic bubbles, over-investment, rampant speculation, etc. However, when all was said and done there were real economic gains. The Railway Mania produced railroads, and the dot com bubble expanded the internet and created related businesses such as amazon.com. The second type of economic bubble is what might be called an asset bubble. The Tulip Mania of the 1600s and the recent (or current depending on where you live) housing bubble are both examples of asset bubbles. In an asset bubble the price of an asset increases beyond its fundamental value so the price of that asset must come down through inflation, a price collapse, or a combination thereof.

The misandry bubble is clearly an asset bubble. The fundamental value of women has not increased. Women aren’t becoming more beautiful, or smarter, or better cooks, or better girlfriends, etc. By any metric you wish to use, women are not improving. If anything they are getting worse so their fundamental value is going down not up. Thus, the misandry bubble exists because the demands, the “price”, women are demanding from men is going up while the fundamental value of women is holding steady or really going down.

In an economic bubble there are several social psychology factors. One is extrapolation, the idea that because prices have risen in the past they will do so in the future. During the housing bubble we saw this with speculators who flipped houses, and other people who bought houses because if they didn’t buy soon, “they would be priced out forever”. Realtors would say, “real estate only goes up”. David Lereah, the former Chief Economist for the National Association of Realtors, wrote books about how home prices would continue to rise until around 2010 or so. The same claims were made about the oil price spike of 2008 such as demand from the BRIC countries would remain high. We see the same claims in the misandry bubble. A lot of men accept the increasing demands of women because either they are “white knights” or believe that they have no other choice. However, as we see from the collapse of the housing bubble and the 2008 oil price spike, extrapolation is wrong, and this is true with the misandry bubble as well.

Another factor is herding, the idea that investors buy or sell in the direction of the market trend. In the housing bubble, many investment fund managers bought the investment vehicles that were designed to sell mortgages. During the bubble, there were hardly any voices speaking out about how the problems with these mortgage investment vehicles. There were people who noticed, but kept their mouths shut since it could mean losing pay or their jobs. Herding also existed on the level of individual buyers who bought because “everyone else was doing it”.

One aspect of herding that isn’t well know is the use of shaming language to get people who would be skeptical of the behavior causing the bubble to fall in line. There was plenty of shaming language used in the housing bubble. Many made claims that renters were losers and “would be priced out forever” (as in they would forever have the stigma of being a renter since they wouldn’t be able to afford buying a house in the future). The biggest example of shaming language has to be the Century 21 commercial from 2006 (the below video).

In addition to the shaming language to get the husband to buy the house, there is also a great deal of misandry in this video. This is a case of the housing bubble and the misandry bubble overlapping. The husband was right to be skeptical. This commercial aired in 2006. If the couple was really worried about schools, they could have waited two years (when their oldest was starting kindergarten) and saved a boatload of money. Even better they could have rented waiting out the housing bubble in the location with the schools they wanted. However, it was more important to make the husband fall in line despite the fact that he was originally right. With the misandry bubble, shaming language is nothing new as we have the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics.

We also see moral hazards with bubbles where the decision making of investors in terms of risk and reward is interfered with. With the housing bubble, they are plenty of moral hazards as the government was and is encouraging people to buy houses. The $8000 tax credit for new homeowners is a prime example. It encourages people who would otherwise rationally weigh whether they would want to buy a house or not to believe there is less risk in buying a house than there actually is. Moral hazards aren’t limited to government policy either. The explosion of exotic mortgages during the housing bubble allowed people to buy houses they otherwise could not afford. These moral hazards lead to many of the foreclosures we see today since they threw the risk-reward relationship of whether to buy a house or not out of whack. Moral hazards also exist in the misandry bubble. The clearest example is with divorce and family courts. With the way divorce works now, women can easily divorce their husbands and get rewarded for it both financially and in getting the kids creating an incentive to get divorced. The same is true with the false rape industry. A woman can get away with making false rape accusations which creates an incentive to make false rape accusations. In the churches, priests/ministers/pastors “encourage” men to get married (using plenty of shaming language) creating a moral hazard of men marrying women they otherwise wouldn’t.

When economic bubbles happen, people who implicitly or explicitly realize there is a bubble, make changes in their behavior. Many people decided to wait out the housing bubble by renting to the point of deciding to rent their entire lives in some cases since they were soured on buying houses. With the 2008 oil price spike, people changed their driving habits and started buying more fuel efficient cars. The misandry bubble is no different. Many men learn game, go ghost, become part of the marriage strike, or even just minimize their time alone with certain types of women.

Overproduction and the search for alternatives is another aspect of a bubble. With the housing bubble, many more houses were built than needed. Areas were gentrified by people looking for cheap housing. The 2008 oil price spike led to increased oil production where possible and investment into alternative energy and other alternatives to oil. With the misandry bubble many men decide to expat to find women or bring foreign women to where they live. In the longer term, alternatives will include virtual reality sex, sex bots, and artificial wombs. The creation of these technologies is guaranteed by the fact that the misandry bubble is an economic bubble.

However, the misandry bubble is different from economic bubbles in one important way. The prices due to a bubble must come down through either inflation, lowered prices, or a combination. There is no equivalent to inflation in the misandry bubble so the “price” women are demanding from men must by definition collapse to where it was before. With the creation of technological alternatives, it will collapse to a lower level than it was before.

By now you have already heard about the “mancession”, and you know that men are disproportionately losing their jobs compared to women in this recession. Since the official unemployment rate in the US is already in the double digits, President Obama did the only thing he knows how to do, talk, by holding a jobs summit. All that came out of the jobs summit was undeniable proof that all the attendees at the summit should probably be unemployed.

Originally, the “stimulus” (which was supposed to keep the official unemployment rate well below its current level) was supposed to be spent on infrastructure. The I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapse in Minnesota in 2007 and the DC Metro crash earlier this year in June (which was also covered by our own Roissy on his personal blog) showed that spending on maintaining current and building new infrastructure has been insufficient for a long time. The stimulus would have been a good opportunity to begin to correct this massive error as solid infrastructure is necessary for long term economic growth (not to mention safety), but womens’ (such as NOW) groups objected. They called the original stimulus “burly”, “macho”, and “sexist” demanding that the stimulus be spent on women. This was despite the fact that millions of men were losing their jobs, and education and health care added jobs primarily benefiting women. NOW and the other womens’ groups were successful with the stimulus was skewed towards education and health care leaving infrastructure in the same dangerous state it was before. In addition the gap between male and female unemployment is the largest in the history of unemployment data going back to 1948 when such data began.

This “women oriented stimulus” along with other things has caused the federal deficit for this year to surpass 1.8 trillion dollars, far beyond the deficit of any previous year. This causes more men to be unemployed since this massive federal debt is sucking capital out of the private sector which destroys jobs. Literally, there is no capital for new business creation and business expansion that would create jobs. Given all of the other factors here, effectively the stimulus and other ballooning government spending is causing millions and millions of more men to be unemployed. At least if the stimulus was spent on infrastructure jobs doing badly needed work would be created that would have provided a solid foundation for long term economic growth. Instead we have infrastructure that continues to crumble plus more and more men losing their jobs.

Since government policy is now driving the problems of male unemployment and crumbling infrastructure, only a significant change in government policy will solve these problems. Until then millions more men will become unemployed and there will be more bridges collapsing, metro crashes, electrical grid failures, and other disasters that should never have happened.

Van Jones was part of what has been called to the blue-green alliance, really the blue collar-green alliance, an attempt to put together big labor with environmentalists. For Van Jones that only means politically correct labor since he has talked about “making places like West Oakland the center of the green economy” and “creating a pipeline from prisons to the green economy”. This is not to create green (or any other kind of) energy, but along with cap and trade tax to make a government controlled cartel over energy.

There is an energy revolution coming, but guys like Van Jones want to strangle it before it begins. For example, Obama cut funding to tidal energy research when its on the verge of becoming a usable form of energy generation (particularly in the Pacific Northwest). In the 90s, Clinton cut the funding down to nothing for the Integral Fast Reactor, nuclear reactor technology that would have greatly reduced the problem of nuclear waste. If Clinton and Obama really are interested in creating green energy, then why did they cut funding to two things that would have done just that? The answer is that they aren’t interested in green energy but making everyone more impoverished by increasing the price of energy, making people more dependent on government. New energy technologies would also primarily benefit (white and Asian) men since they would get the jobs from these technologies. As we now know from Van Jones, this is unacceptable to him and guys like Clinton and Obama.

Guys like Van Jones, Clinton, and Obama have to strangle technological development to force people to be dependent on government. This means strangling development in energy technologies since without energy technological development is slowed or stalled. This is also very anti-male as (white and Asian) men are the leading developers of new technologies. This is why Van Jones has to try to force government controlled “green energy” using (former) prisoners and other politically correct groups because otherwise it would benefit (white and Asian) men.